Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali vs. The State Of Assam

Reportable
2026 INSC 421


IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No.558 of 2021


Sadek Ali @ Md. Sadek Ali and Anr.
...Appellants

Versus

The State of Assam and Anr.
...Respondents
With

Criminal Appeal No.850 of 2021

Criminal Appeal No.1264 of 2021

Criminal Appeal No.1428 of 2021

Criminal Appeal No.1096 of 2021

Criminal Appeal No.852 of 2022

Criminal Appeal No.266 of 2023

Criminal Appeal No…..…… of 2026
(@SLP (Crl.) No………….of 2026 @
Diary No.46790 of 2024)

J U D G M E N T

K. Vinod Chandran, J.


An inept investigation or a scripted enquiry, both are
fatal to criminal prosecution; but the latter has lethal
Signature Not Verified
consequences when there is a possibility of totally innocent
Digitally signed by
Deepak Guglani
Date: 2026.04.28
13:33:08 IST
Reason:
persons being crucified. In the present case 16 persons
were charge-sheeted as accused, of which one died during
Page 1 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

the trial. Out of the remaining, 12 were convicted and
sentenced under Sections 147, 341, 326, 307, 323 and 302
1
read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 .
Eighteen witnesses were examined before the trial court, of
which six were eyewitnesses: one disbelieved by the trial
court and the High Court. The defense examined two
witnesses and denied their culpability. The appellants are
the convicted accused, two of whom have passed away.
2. Ms. Vibha Datta Makhija, learned Senior Counsel for
some of the appellants, emphasized that though a GD entry
was made and immediately police went to the place of
occurrence (P.O) the FIR was registered after three days on
the written complaint of PW1 naming all the accused: clearly
making the arraignment after due deliberation. The
investigation was commenced on the GD entry, but the
prosecution is based on the FIR, which was pursuant to
another GD entry. The eyewitnesses are said to be wholly
unreliable, there being inconsistencies in their own
narration and amongst themselves. The deposition
regarding the overt acts is disparate and the injuries were
never compared with the weapons, and they were also

1
For brevity, ‘IPC’
Page 2 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

inconsistent with the post-mortem report. There is no
recovery of weapons and even the seized weapons were
never sent for forensic analysis. There was no proof
regarding the injuries suffered by the so-called injured
witnesses, making their very presence at the P.O doubtful.
The learned Senior Counsel would also point out that no
statements under Section 161, Cr. P.C. were taken from the
witnesses paraded before Court and the statements under
Section 164, Cr. P.C were recorded far later. The learned
Counsel appearing for the other appellants adopted the
arguments raised by the learned Senior Counsel.
3. Mr. Chinmoy Sharma learned Senior AAG appearing
for the respondent-State vehemently argued that there were
five eyewitnesses, believed concurrently by the trial court
and the High Court. The eyewitnesses remained unshaken
in cross-examination. The Investigating Officer (IO-PW18)
spoke of the injury suffered by PW14, one of the injured
eyewitnesses; his statement having been recorded at a
hospital. The investigation had proceeded based on the GD
entry and the High Court correctly found the same to be the
first information. The eyewitnesses who were
accompanying the deceased at the time of the incident had
Page 3 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

run away from the P.O, out of fear for their lives, the
concerted attack having been made by 16 persons carrying
deadly weapons. The other witnesses who came to the P.O
immediately after the attack fully corroborated the
eyewitnesses. The postmortem report indicated the death
having been caused from injuries inflicted by sharp cutting
weapons from different directions some of which were bone
deep and the others impacting vital organs like the brain
and lung. The evidence led at the trial, according to the
learned Senior Counsel, was sufficient to find the accused
guilty of the offences and there is no reason to upset the
findings.
4. The High Court extracted and approved the findings
of the trial court that the witnesses were examined on the
strength of the GD entry, especially PW2 and PW13 who
were eyewitnesses. The trial court found that since such
examination was immediately after the incident, there is no
reason to discard the evidence of other witnesses also, since
otherwise it will send a wrong message. The High Court
found that the attempt of the appellants’ counsel to decry the
investigation on the ground of a delayed FIR falls flat, since
there was already a GD entry recorded in the jurisdictional
Page 4 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

Police Station immediately after the incident which can be
termed as the FIR in the above case thus relegating the
statement leading to the registration of the FIR as one under
Section 161, which would be hit by Section 162 of the Cr.P.C
since it was signed. The High Court upheld the conviction
and sentence awarded to the 11 accused except that of the
second appellant in Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2017, who
stood acquitted.
5. The prosecution case was that on 08.07.2008, the
deceased along with the five eyewitnesses (PW2, PW7,
PW13, PW14 and PW15) were returning home from Karbala
Bazar on four motor bikes. While they were travelling on the
Gobindapur-Rabhapara PWD road, nearby the house of
accused No.1, a lonely spot, the 4 bikes were waylaid with
a thick steel wire tied across the road. The abrupt braking
of bikes resulted in the riders falling down, when a sudden
attack was launched by the accused on the deceased who
was first blinded by throwing chili powder in his eyes.
Multiple injuries were inflicted on the deceased with cutting
weapons, and his left hand was severed from the wrist. The
eyewitnesses spoke in tandem about the incident, but we
will deal with that a little later.
Page 5 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

6. The police reached the spot based on a GD entry
produced as Annexure P1 in Criminal Appeal No.558 of
2021; the documents from which are referred to herein. An
inquest was carried out at about 9.30 P.M on 08.07.2008
itself, produced as Annexure P2 and seizures effected as
seen from Annexure P3 & P4 from the P.O. Postmortem was
conducted on 09.07.2008; the report produced as Annexure
P6. A written complaint was filed by PW1, produced as
Annexure P8 based on which Annexure P9 FIR was
registered. Annexure P8 named 13 accused, all of whom
were spoken of as residents of Gobindapur. The FIS by PW1
specifically mentioned the presence of 10 to 12 other
accused persons who could be identified on sight.
7. That the victim died from a brutal attack with cutting
weapons is more than clear from the postmortem report,
which speaks of multiple cut injuries on the body of the
deceased; specifically three on the head and face, one on
the right side of the neck, another below the nipple on the
left chest and compound fractures on both the legs. There is
also an injury seen on the frontal part of the forehead, which
fractured the maxilla, mandible and frontal bone. The
hematoma on the frontal lobe of the cerebrum extended to
Page 6 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

th th
the subdural space. The 4 and 5 ribs were fractured, and
the right lung revealed another hematoma on the left side.
The left hand was severed at the wrist. That the death was
homicidal stands established.
8. The GD entry is seen to have been made at 09.15 P.M
on 08.07.2008, on information received over the phone from
the Secretary of VDP, Gobindapur and recorded by the
Inspector in-charge of the Goalpara Police Station, one
Padma Dhar Chutiya. Neither the informant was examined
nor the Inspector who recorded the entry in the general
diary maintained at the Police Station; negating the finding
of the High Court that this entry is the first information
report. The evidence of PW18, the I.O, who was deputed
immediately on the GD entry being made clearly indicates
that he reached the spot on 08.07.2008 at 9.30 P.M, when
PW1 was available at the spot. PW18 conducted an inquest
on the spot and sent the body for postmortem to the hospital.
However, he did not choose to register an FIR on the basis
of the information supplied by PW1, immediately on his
return to the Police Station. PW18 also does not speak of any
names having been disclosed by PW1 who identified the
deceased at the P.O along with PW3, another relative. PW18
Page 7 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

does not speak of the presence of the eyewitnesses at the
P.O.
9. Seizures were made from the spot of a beki dao , lathi ,
spike and 4 motor bikes, which is evident from the seizure
list produced as Annexures P3 and P4. Annexure P4, seizure
list not only contained the description of the bikes but also
the name of the persons who travelled in each; who are the
eyewitnesses. The FIR was registered two days later on
10.07.2008 at 11.50 A.M, the FIS leading to which named 13
accused. It is pertinent that while naming the 13 accused in
the complaint produced as Annexure P8, the first informant
also spoke of 10 to 12 other accused persons and
categorically stated: “I don’t know their names, but I will be
able to recognize them at sight” . However, PW1 is not cited
as an eyewitness, and he does not claim to have seen the
incident. The delay in registering the FIR based on the FIS,
which indicated the name of 13 accused is suspect
especially since PW1 does not speak of having witnessed
the incident.

10. We have to pertinently observe that PW1 and the other
eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased. Even if the
five eyewitnesses are found credible; which we are not
Page 8 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

convinced of, there was due deliberation before the FIS was
lodged. The fact that none of the eyewitnesses though it fit
to make a statement before the police further raises the
suspicion regarding the array of accused as stated in the FIS.
It is pertinent that PW1 categorically stated in his deposition
that he did not witness the incident and that it was one Ashad
Ali who spoke of the assault made by the accused leading to
the death of his nephew, Wahab and injuries sustained on
Omar; PW14, the son-in-law of the deceased. Ashad Ali was
not examined before Court.

11. The High Court termed the GD entry as the FIR based
on which the investigation was commenced especially
noticing that PW2 and PW13 were examined by the police
immediately after the incident. PW2 spoke in tandem with
the prosecution story regarding the attack unleashed on the
deceased by the named accused and spoke of injuries
inflicted on him, one of which led to his left hand being
severed at the wrist. He also spoke of Omar Ali, PW14
having sustained injuries. He did not speak of having fled
from the P.O but categorically stated that when the villagers
gathered the assailants took to their heels and that Abdul
Wahab died on the spot. With respect to the statement
Page 9 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

recorded by the police, he was not sure when he was
questioned. He only confirmed that the police questioned
him and spoke of his statement having been recorded under
Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. If the police had questioned PW2,
who is said to have been available at the spot, PW18 who
reached the spot at 9.30 P.M would definitely have
registered an FIR on his return to the Police Station. PW18
does not speak of the presence of PW2 at the P.O or any
statement having recorded from him. The High Court and
the trial court egregiously erred in finding the investigation
having commenced with the examination of PW2.
12. It is also relevant that PW13 deposed that he was
questioned before the dead body was taken from the P.O,
but PW18 does not corroborate that. Likewise, PW15
another eyewitness, also spoke of having been questioned
at the place of occurrence. The presence of eyewitnesses
PW2, PW13 and PW15 at the P.O when the villagers
gathered there is affirmed by PW3, PW6 and PW8 who
reached the P.O immediately after the incident. But PW18
does not speak of recording a statement from any of them.
When the eyewitnesses were present at the P.O there is no
Page 10 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

explanation as to why their statement was not recorded or
the accused arrayed in a proper FIR immediately thereafter.
13. Now we come to PW14, one of the injured witnesses
on whom reliance was placed by both the High Court and
the trial court. PW18 does not speak of any statement having
been recorded from PW14 in his chief-examination.
However, in cross-examination PW18 stated that PW14 was
examined at Solace Hospital, Goalpara on 22.07.2008; long
after the registration of the FIR. The other five eyewitnesses
were also stated to have been examined under Section 164
Cr.P.C. on 19.07.2008. There is no statement by PW1 as to
any statement under Section 161 having been recorded
from the said witnesses. Interestingly, PW18 also says that
PW14 did not state before him that he had tried to obstruct
the assault on the deceased. PW18 also denied PW14 having
informed him of the treatment taken at different places or
that he was assaulted by a beki dao . In this context, we have
to notice the deposition of PW14 that during the course of
the attack he became unconscious and he regained his
consciousness in the Solace Hospital around 1’o Clock on
the following day. He also deposed that he had been
referred to the Government Medical College Hospital,
Page 11 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

Guwahati on that day, that is 09.07.2008. The statement in
cross-examination of PW18 that he examined PW14 on
22.07.2008 at Solace Hospital, Goalpara hence cannot be
believed.
14. PW14 spoke of cut blows on his hand and legs, on his
right wrist and the waist as also the right arm. He also
deposed that his legs were plastered. His deposition
indicates that he was first treated at one Solace Hospital and
then referred to GMCH, Guwahati. Absolutely, no intimation
to the Police Station was received from the Solace Hospital
in which he was admitted on 08.07.2008. There is no wound
certificate issued either from Solace Hospital or the GMCH,
produced in the trial. The injury sustained by PW14 though
spoken by all eyewitnesses there was nothing to establish
that PW14 actually sustained the said injuries.
15. The eyewitnesses spoke of the incident in tune with
the prosecution story about the attack on the deceased,
PW14 and PW6. PW6 is said to have suffered stab injuries
and she speaks of having lost her consciousness at the P.O.
Again, there was no proof of the injuries sustained by PW6.
We pause here to notice that despite the police having
reached the spot immediately after the assault in which
Page 12 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

allegedly one person was killed and two others injured
grievously, no attempt was made to collect the blood spilled
at the P.O, so as to match it with that of the deceased and the
injured.
16. PW6, as we noticed, was disbelieved by the trial court
and the High Court and the injury sustained by PW14 has
also not been proved in which circumstance, we cannot find
the narration of the incident as one proffered by ‘injured
eyewitness’. The credibility of an injured eyewitness, as has
been held by this Court is a tad higher than an eyewitness
who has just seen the incident. The very fact that the witness
suffered an injury in the same transaction adds to its
credibility. On the other hand, when the prosecution fails to
prove the very injuries projected as sustained in the same
transaction, not only are we unable to concede a greater
credibility than that available to a chance witness, but it also
makes doubtful their very presence in the P.O.
17. Insofar as the other eyewitnesses are concerned
though they supported the prosecution as to the crime
proper and identified the assailants, they too spoke of the
injuries suffered by PW6 & PW14, raising a cloud of
suspicion accentuated by the fact that all of them are related
Page 13 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

witnesses, in fact close relatives. Related witnesses, as is
trite, cannot always be termed to be interested witnesses,
but here the incident having occurred on a public road their
presence together cannot be presumed as natural. The
prosecution case is also that the eyewitnesses having met at
the Karbala Bazar were travelling on four motorbikes to
their homes in the locality. All the four bikes were seized
by the police from the P.O, by the seizure list Annexure P4
detailing the engine number, chassis number and the
registration number of the bikes with a description of the
make and color along with the owners’ name and
specifically indicating who drove each bike and who was
travelling pillion. If such an account was made by any of the
eyewitnesses, it is strange that the I.O did not record an FIS,
then and there with the name of the assailants arrayed as
accused. In the given circumstances, we are unable to give
any credence to Annexure P4, which proclaims the seizure
to have been made at the spot, immediately after the crime;
alarmingly doubtful.

18. Further, despite the ownership of the vehicles having
been indicated in the seizure Mahazar, there is no document
produced before the Court to substantiate such ownership.
Page 14 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

The motor bikes seized were also not produced before
Court at any time before or at the time of trial to confront the
witnesses; neither the eyewitness who travelled in the bikes
or the other witnesses who gathered at the spot immediately
thereafter. The very story of six people having proceeded
on four bikes stand effaced by reason of no worthy evidence
having been produced to substantiate the same: putting the
eyewitnesses’ testimonies under grave suspicion.
19. It also assumes relevance that the eyewitnesses never
fled from the P.O and most of them claimed their presence
even when the villagers gathered at the spot and when the
police arrived. PW3 to PW6 and PW8 to PW11 are persons
who converged at the P.O immediately after the incident.
They spoke of the presence of some of the eyewitnesses
which itself is suspect since then the name of the assailants
would have been disclosed at that point itself, all of the
assailants being of the very same village. But for the
deceased having been attacked brutally with grievous
injuries inflicted and his left hand severed at the wrist,
spoken of by the witnesses who converged on the spot, also
evidenced by the inquest and the postmortem report, there
is no credible evidence to substantiate the prosecution
Page 15 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

case. The eyewitnesses paraded before the Court are not
believable since their presence in the P.O is highly
improbable for not being established unequivocally; in the
context of no evidence having been adduced to substantiate
the story of the five witnesses, close relatives, having
travelled with the deceased on four bikes.
20. Though the police moved to the spot on the basis of a
GD entry, there was no FIR registered for two days, waiting
for PW1 to make a complaint with the names and asserting
identification on sight of the other 10-12 assailants who is
said to have participated in the assault when PW1 was not
an eyewitness. It is also the evidence at the trial that at least
three eyewitnesses were present at the spot when the police
arrived.
21. The seizure list of the motor bikes; doubtful in its
genesis, though indicating the ownership of the respective
bikes, there are no documents seized indicating such
ownership; which was never proved. The weapons seized
were neither sent for forensic analysis, nor were they
confronted to the eyewitnesses or the Doctor who
conducted the postmortem.
Page 16 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.

22. It is unfortunate that PW18, the police officer who
reached the spot immediately after the incident took place,
on the basis of an information over telephone, failed to
follow due procedure to put the criminal investigation in
motion as per the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Be it
ignorance, inefficiency or malicious motivation, the crime is
left unresolved and considerable time and money has been
spent in the prosecution of 16 persons, some of whom died
during trial and the others suffered incarceration for long
periods. The State and its Department of Home would do
well to better equip their officers in investigating crimes and
educating them of due procedure.
23. The appeals are allowed, acquitting the appellants
and cancelling the bail bonds of the accused who is/are on
bail.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.


...……..……………………. J.
(SANJAY KUMAR)



....…….……………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 28, 2026.
Page 17 of 17
Crl. A. No. 558 of 2021 etc.